Great article on "Ten Simple Rules for Building and Maintaining a Scientific Reputation"
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2fjournal.pcbi.1002108

Step 1: Complete disbelief that this data can possibly be correct (oh that method was used to get the results...)
Step 2: Trepidation at the joy that potential insights from the new data seems to provide (could it possibly be right?) 
Step 3: Sheer delight at the magnitude of nature's diabolical schemes (it is right!)
Step 4: Convincing cynical reviewers that you are right (no...Joe did NOT show this...)
Step 5: Fending off underhanded attacks from Joe and company for the rest of your life....
 
.....all for the love of Science...   

Among the numerous email lists that I have inadvertently signed up for (including several for focused organ enhancement and proclamations of my ancestors' enormous wealth), there is one that I really like http://www.connexoncreative.com/publications/Neural_Cell_News.aspx

I don't know how or why I get monthly updates in my email from "Neural Cell News", but curiously, there are always things in their list that interest me. Even though I must say their heading "Neural cell news" is annoying, because if you say 'neural', then you don't really have to say 'cell', because a neuron is a cell, and will always be one...but I digress. Sign up recommended if you are into neuroscience.


Also annoying is how they list stories by their impact factor. Thankfully this is at the bottom of the page, after the main stories, so can be easily ignored.

Its funny how some reviewers of "high impact factor journal X" don't review the Science so much, but instead make comments on whether the paper is "good enough for journal X". Its like deciding whether or not you deserve an entry into the club. Wonder if this is driven by editors, or whether its a reflection of the reviewers' assumed self-importance upon wearing the revered "Reviewer's Gown of the high impact factor journal X". 

Seems to me that you want to be ambitious, but not crazy. The proposed project must be well within the constrains of reality - must be a hypothesis that can be actually tested that is - and must not ignore decades of well-established facts, just to foster some lunatic, crazy-ass idea that one may have. 
 
The flip side to this is that there will be the occasional crazy idea that will be correct (prions come to mind right now, but science is littered with them - viruses causing cancer is another). Probably a simple rule of thumb is that  imagination needs to be based on reality, and must be eventually verified by real experiments!

As I was walking to my car a few days back, I saw a pickup truck parked with the back of a (brand new) chair sticking out. From where I was, I only had a sideways view of the truck, and I could also see the base of a (also brand new) chair sticking out (the ones that have swiveling wheels), but it was clear (to me) that the back and the base did not belong to the same chair, as they were not together.

So from 30 feet away I made a swift judgement. This guy transports chairs, and he has at least two chairs in his truck. I had all kinds of visions of the office that he was a contractor for - one with at least two chairs and a desk. As I got nearer, I could now see the truckbed clearly. Both parts belonged to the same chair, but for some inexplicable reason this dude had separated the base and the back of a brand new chair and was transporting both in his truck.
 
Nevertheless I was reminded of the extreme importance of forcing the mind to formulate alternate hypotheses for every possible scenario (as a scientist), and the value (as a physician) for always having a list of differential diagnoses. My absolute belief that there had to be at least two chairs prevented me from even considering that both the back and the base could possibly be part of the same chair. Hope that guy found a way to put that chair together!

Bruce Springsteen predicted the coming of social media decades ago...57 channels and nothing on... thankfully we have youtube, so I can make everyone aware of my view on this topic :)

Just saw a science fair show on TV (PBS) where the students make neat projects, but when they were asked if they wanted to do science when they grow up, the perky kids said "oh no...science classes are nothing like this..this is fun." Very interesting observation, and I totally agree. What's the solution, I don't know. The thing is that with science, one just has to stick it out and dabble in it for a few years to really get it. Thats just the way it is, or is it? Certainly there is nothing that I have found that has not come after months and years of frustation and hair-pulling (perhaps the reason for my smoldering hair-loss). Is there any other way? Can someone just walk into a lab and just "get it". Like when you play Wii the first time, you get it. There is no need for repeated exposure (though that can be good).

You can't make Chicken Soup wthout the Chicken. There's no app for that.

My wife claims - "for you, everything except science has to be a 'Cliff notes' version". This is in response to my unabashed enthusiasm for the new "graphic classics" she got for my 8 year old son. What can I say, I just finished reading "Kidnapped" and the "Man  in the Iron Mask" in an hour, and am all set to get back to my grant writing!